Ein hoch auf die tapferen Kurden die sich den IS-Ratten stellen und nicht wie viele andere geflohen sind! DANKE!
Posted by David Arbach on Dienstag, 15. März 2016
Donnerstag, 17. März 2016
vids
Donnerstag, 3. März 2016
Archbishop Rosenkranz´s March Message
Archbishop Rosenkranz´s
March Message
in german language
https://vimeo.com/157557605
Rosenkranz MärzMessage 3.16 from Uwe Rosenkranz on Vimeo.
Bitte klicken Sie auf den obigen link, um das 39 Minuten Video von
Archbischof Uwe AE.Rosenkranz zu starten.
Das Interesse der Investoren an verantwortungsbewussten Kapitalanlagen steigt kontinuierlich. „2016 werden sich umweltorientierte, soziale und Governance-Investments (Environmental, Social and Governance, kurz ESG) von einem Spezialgebiet zu einem Muss entwickeln“, sagt Matt Christensen von AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM).
Die 21. Klimakonferenz in Paris hat ein klares Signal an Unternehmen gesendet, die in den Bereichen Energieerzeugung, Transport, Bau und Industrie tätig sind: Um die Risiken des Klimawandels auf Umwelt und Wirtschaft zu begrenzen, ist ein Wandel erforderlich. Matt Christensen, Global Head of Responsible Investment (RI) bei AXA IM, erwartet, dass sich Investoren immer stärker auf die Investmentmöglichkeiten fokussieren werden, die sich durch den Klimawandel und die damit verbundenen Governance-Implikationen entwickeln.
Drei Themen werden nach Christensen die Entscheidungen von Investoren künftig verstärkt beeinflussen:
1. Die Entwicklung der kohlenstoffintensiven Sektoren könnte langfristig Einfluss auf die Bewertung und die Asset Allocation nehmen. Analysten und Investoren werden den Klimawandel in ihr Research und in ihre Fundamentalanalysen einbeziehen um einschätzen zu können, wie Unternehmen auf diese Herausforderung reagieren.
2. Öffentliche und private Investoren werden nach Möglichkeiten suchen, den Übergang zu einer emissionsarmen Wirtschaft zu finanzieren, indem sie Energieeffizienz und neue Energiequellen unterstützen. Die Möglichkeiten sind vielfältig und werden die unterschiedlichsten Sektoren, Regionen und Assetklassen beeinflussen
3. Die Transparenz für Investoren wird sich erhöhen, da der Finanzstabilitätsrat Unternehmen drängen wird, ihre Klimarisiken offenzulegen. Davon werden auch Fundamentalanalysten profitieren. Ihre ESG-Analysen werden belastbarer.
Investoren trennen sich von kohlenstoffintensiven Sektoren
2015 haben eine Reihe bedeutender Anleger ihre Investitionen in kohlenstoffintensive Sektoren abgestoßen. Dem Klimanetzwerk Fossil Free zufolge handelt es sich dabei insgesamt um ein Anlagevolumen von rund 3,4 Billionen Dollar von mehr als 500 Institutionen. Christensen geht davon aus, dass es 2016 noch mehr werden. Allerdings sieht der AXA-IM-Experte solche Veräußerungen nicht als geeignetes Mittel, um Steinkohleunternehmen zu saubereren Technologien zu bewegen, insbesondere wenn sie keine anderen Einnahmequellen haben. Er empfiehlt Investoren, die Einfluss auf das Umweltengagement von Unternehmen nehmen wollen, stattdessen einen Mix von Verkäufen einerseits und gezieltem Engagement andererseits.
Der Markt für Green Bonds wird weiter wachsen
Zum vierten Mal in Folge konnten Green Bonds 2015 Zulassungsrekorde feiern. Das Marktvolumen liegt laut AXA IM nun bei rund 100 Millionen US-Dollar. Bislang seien vor allem überstaatliche Organisationen und staatsnahe Organisationen (Agencies) unter den Emittenten. Green Bonds würden aber zunehmend auch von Unternehmen herausgegeben. Deren Emissionen hätten 2015 rund 45 Prozent des Gesamtangebotes ausgemacht. Gleichzeitig sei die Frequenz der Emissionen deutlich gestiegen, vor allem im Vorfeld der Klimakonferenz. Bis dato sei bei solchen Emissionen der Finanzsektor Vorreiter gewesen. Dieser habe sogar die Energieerzeuger übertroffen, die auf dem Markt erneuerbare Energien refinanzieren wollen. AXA IM rechnet jedoch nun mit einem Anstieg der Emissionen von Unternehmen, da sich auch immer mehr traditionelle Investoren für Green Bonds interessierten, die neben Rendite mehr Diversifikation sowie ökologische Vorteile versprächen.
Trend: Impact Investing
Christensen sieht das Thema in diesem Jahr auch auf den Agenden von Hauptversammlungen ganz vorne. „Für Unternehmen wird es immer schwieriger werden, Umweltrisiken zu rechtfertigen“, sagt der RI-Experte. In Zukunft werde Impact Investing, bei dem Investoren auf die Verwendung ihrer Gelder Einfluss nehmen können, zum Trend werden und zwar nicht nur als alternative Anlageklasse, sondern über alle Assetklassen hinweg. „Es wird in der Finanzindustrie zu einer Kultur der Wirkungsmessung kommen“, meint Christensen. Noch sei der Markt jung, aber das Potenzial von nachhaltiger Geldanlage sei immens, so Christensen: „Responsible Investment wird die Zukunft gestalten.“
Der Beitrag als pdf-Dokument
Weitere infos: http://UweRosenkranz.de
Montag, 15. Februar 2016
+++++ ROSARY-news: Why #Parisagreement #Means4Me a 200 Mio $ impact o...
+++++ ROSARY-news: Why #Parisagreement #Means4Me a 200 Mio $ impact o...: #ParisAgreement #Means4Me a 200 Million € Solar Power Plant with german Patent Licenece landmanagement system for UNFCCC fundings to le...
What #Parisagreement #Means4Me
#ParisAgreement #Means4Me
a 200 Million € Solar Power Plant
with german Patent Licenece
landmanagement system
for UNFCCC fundings
to let Our Rosary Ministries International
Movement grow, according to
the #CSO53 and #CSO150
an Laudato Si pope Francis`Encyclica.
by Archbishop RosenkranzKraftNetz.com our website
Divest event: La Buena Vida - planned event with Divest Stuttgart
Climate risks could wreak havoc on financial markets, EU watchdog warns- ref. financing advices
Mittwoch, 10. Februar 2016
How to Resolve the Culture Wars . . . Maybe - by Archbishop S.E. Uwe Alfred Erich Rosenkranz, Ma, Dd.
How to Resolve the Culture Wars . . . Maybe
In the final chapter of his award-winning book, The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief, George Marsden offers a constructive suggestion to Christians frustrated with the challenge of living in a pluralistic society.
He suggests we look to Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper.
For much of American history, Marsden notes, Protestantism dominated the nation. Though the United States never had an established church, the shared Protestant beliefs, values, and heritage unified the moral outlook of most Americans. As the Jewish and Roman Catholic population increased, the nation moved from being Protestant in its ethos to being “Judeo-Christian.”
This increased religious diversity brought conflict, however, increasing the appeal of the (supposedly) neutral common ground provided by secularism. The secular solution to religious conflict in the public square was that religion should remain private. Kuyper describes secularism (using the term liberal to identify the secularist):
This does not mean that each and every liberal wants to be irreverent and disrespectful toward God. It only means that in their opinion religion belongs to the realm of the inner life and that the state as a political power must avoid as much as possible all contact with this inner life. (Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto, 58.)
Secularists believed that secularism kept religious conflicts from disrupting public life.
Secularism and its discontents
But a secular public square turned out to be less neutral than it promised. Secularists bring their own moral views to the table—while surreptitiously demanding others leave their moral and religious beliefs behind. Harvard’s Michael Sandel notes in his course on justice that such an approach is not the best way to ensure mutual tolerance. If certain moral and religious viewpoints are excluded from public discourse while others are permitted, those excluded become disheartened or angry. Public discourse itself is harmed because certain viewpoints are ruled out of bounds before even being given a hearing. The secularist approach lacks integrity and thus breeds resentment.
This lack of integrity has provoked a number of responses among American Christians, including resentment. Some have been spurred to political action in the hope of “taking America back from the secularists.” They thought if enough like-minded people could be mobilized to vote for men and women sympathetic to their concerns, the country could maintain a Judeo-Christian character. While many Christians still hold to this hope, sometimes modifying it to include broader cultural engagement, many others have become disillusioned by its apparent failures.
The Kuyperian solution
Marsden proposes Kuyper’s political philosophy as an alternative to both secularism on the one hand and chimerical moral majorities on the other. Kuyper managed to reject secularism while still recognizing the reality of pluralism. Kuyper rejected secularism because he recognized that no human endeavor is neutral. Not even science or mathematics are neutral—even if non-Christian scientists and mathematicians reach the same conclusions as their Christian colleagues. Those conclusions fit into differing overarching worldviews. For Kuyper, life cannot be divided into a private religious dimension and a religiously neutral public dimension. Religious commitments ought to suffuse all of life.
This does not mean, however, that Kuyper advocated using the government to impose a Christian approach on a diverse population. As Kuyper explains in Our Program, his belief in sphere sovereignty placed limits on what the government could demand of churches, families, schools, unions, or industries.
According to sphere sovereignty all of life is under the sovereignty of God, and the sovereign God grants sovereignty to various spheres of life. Thus parents, not the state, are responsible to raise and discipline their children; churches are responsible to evangelize and disciple people—but it does not have the responsibility to write laws or enforce them.
Each sphere has its own set of responsibilities and limitations. The government’s role is to ensure justice among these groups. When it comes to religious pluralism, Kuyper held that the church had the responsibility to combat heresy, but the government had no sovereign right to combat false religious views (cf. Kuyper, Our Program, 68-72). In the various spheres of life, Christians could organize their own schools, unions, churches, and political parties, but groups with differing moral or religious viewpoints could do the same.
A resolution to the culture wars?
Marsden thinks that a Kuyperian approach could resolve the American culture wars. Disagreement about public policy would still exist, but Christians, adherents to other religions, and non-believers alike would recognize the right of the others to make their case in public. No viewpoint would be ruled out of bounds simply for being religious. What is more, the government would protect the right of Christians (and everyone else) to develop their own institutions in all of the various spheres of life according to their own principles.
Others are not as convinced that a resolution to the culture wars is desireable. They argue that Kuyper’s willingness to accept religious pluralism is inconsistent with his declaration, “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign overall, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” Kuyper’s political pluralism simply allows Christians to be able to have their own associations in every sphere of life. It falls short of Kuyper’s own call to conquer every sphere for Christ.
Others think Kuyper’s approach is acceptable in a religiously diverse society, but they hesitate to say it should be applied universally. They approve Christianity’s privileged place in past societies. Still others wonder if Kuyper’s approach could work with all religious viewpoints. Some might have religious beliefs that include practices the rest of society finds so immoral and unacceptable that they can in no way be tolerated (polygamy and human sacrifice are often given as examples).
I am less sanguine than Marsden that the Kuyperian approach to pluralism will resolve our culture wars, but I am sympathetic to the view that Kuyper offers an alternative to secularism that has a chance of succeeding in a pluralistic society. In any event, Kuyper’s political philosophy is worthy of receiving a serious, if critical, hearing.
Get a free Kuyper book!
For a limited time, you can get the first volume of Abraham Kuypers Common Grace totally free! Part of Lexham Press’ groundbreaking new collection of Kuyper’s Collected Works in Public Theology, Common Grace is the perfect introduction to Kuyperian thought. Get your free copy while you still can—this offer ends on February 29.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)